The law effectively ends the diplomatic immunity of the embassy
if the embassy is being "misused". It's hard to find an instance
of the law being used in a case as sensitive as this — it was
used to evict squatters at the Cambodian Embassy in 1987 — and
the AP reports it has never been used to force entry into an
embassy.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of
prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or
from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.

Are Assange's crimes "non-political" or "from acts contrary to
the purposes and principles of the United Nations"? Technically,
the crime he is being extradited for is a non-political sexual
crime, but the crime he believes he will be extradited for once
in Sweden could definitely be considered political.

Perhaps an even bigger problem, however, is the practical
implications of such a move. The UK would likely face
retaliations from Ecuador and its allies. It may also find other,
more powerful, states using the raid as a justification for their
own actions against UK diplomatic missions.
An additional problem is the large number of Assange supporters
outside the embassy in London — any attempt to arrest Assange
would surely result in some messy scenes being broadcast around
the world.

The UK is reportedly trying to sort out a diplomatic agreement
behind the scenes, perhaps the most realistic outcome. The big
problem, however, is that their threat to enter the embassy and
arrest Assange has ignited extreme anger — Ecuador's foreign
minister said "We are not a British
colony" last night. The vitriol from the UK is noticeable too
—British MP Louise Mensch has called for the
UK to break off relations with Ecuador. Finding a middle
ground may be difficult.